Posted on 07/13/2010 9:26:14 PM PDT by Nachum
In a rare departure from this year's intense political posturing over the soaring budget deficit, House leaders of both parties recently signaled that they are prepared to tackle a leading long-term liability — Social Security — by raising the retirement age.
Politicians often talk in generalities about cutting the deficit, but discussing specifics about how Congress may curb the growth of the biggest and most popular programs such as Social Security and defense is controversial and usually taboo in an election year.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I don’t suppose they could put this off for like 5 year now could they? I want to take an early retirement before they change the benefits to respond to their earlier thefts of our retirement money.
Anyone under 60 right now should make sure they are going to be fit and able to work well past the traditional retirement age. Low birth rates and economic storms ahead insure that.
I suppose if you had the good sense to have a bunch of kids then that will help.
As for the aged with no children that cannot work in their 70? Oh, there will be a plan, don’t you worry about that.
Extending the retirement age beyond 65 only works if there are jobs for people aged 65 and older to do. Current administration economic policies have killed off job creation in this country. Many people are “retired” today in their 50’s and early 60’s because they can’t find jobs, not because they want to be retired.
“As for the aged with no children that cannot work in their 70? Oh, there will be a plan, don’t you worry about that.”
Are you thinking of Soylent Green?
Bet they are. Ever hear what George Bernard Shaw said about people who had to rely on others to survive?
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgpaKkrZex4
Nothing but IOU after IOU in the lock box. I don’t even think they try to convince citizens its in the “Lock Box”, the IOU is stuff in a file cabinet far to the corner.
Raising social security before an election....hmmm, me thinks it is to take people’s attention away from the immigration issue and control of the border.
WHOA!!! That’s an eye opener!!!
This is how Social Security Works.
1. They steal it from you and your employer and put it in a secure lock box, that congress has the key for.
2. The social security taken from you paycheck is part of your gross income so you pay tax on income you did not get,
3. They spend the money in the secure lock box.
4. They “give” back some of the money when you retire but again it is considered income and is taxed.
They steal it, tax it, spend it and tax it again when they “give” some of it back.
If a private firm did this it would be considered, theft, embezzlement, fraud and a ponzi scheme.
I’m amazed the dems didn’t raise the prospect of means testing. After all, it’s not “fair” if some people live within their means, prepare for their future by saving some of their earnings and then have the nerve to collect funds that had been forcibly confiscated from their paychecks by the government with the promise of getting it back someday. There are those “less fortunate” who need it more, right? “We’ve got to spread the wealth...”
/sarc (but could see the Obama administration making this argument because half of the country would buy it)
My investment adviser always shows me this breakdown of my projected financial situation in my "golden years" of which social security was included, I told him to remove it from the projections. He laughed and said he hears that a lot.
“They make the Las Vegas mafia look like kindergardeners.”
Now how would Senator Reid respond to that?
Both parties speak with forked tongue.
Talk about a firestorm trigger!
Let me get this straight a person will have social security taxes taken out of pay check 54 plus years (16 to age 70) only to told at age 70 he/she has too much money so all of the social security taxes collected have been diverted to someone more needer.
A couple of questions here:
1. Who says social security retirement will remain at 70?
2. Who says the “needy threshold” will not be adjusted on an annual basis?
If this concept is mutated into law this means the Federal Government can legally seize the entire Social Security trust funds at any time. Right now that action is boarder line illegal; but this will make it legal.
The real impact of this concept is to totally discourage any savings for old age. Why save anything if there is a chance that it will make you too rich to get your social security when you retire.
You ask how did we get here? Real simple, the Congress critters aren't in social security so why should they try to understand the impacts of a system they aren't part of?
Gee, it just DELAYS retirement age.
The truth is NO ONE WANTS OLD PEOPLE.
Add that to OBAMA care and more will DIE.
“”If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you’re retired, why are we paying you at a time when we’re broke?” he said. “We just need to be honest with people.”
What about the money you were forced to pay into it. Alos are they going to stop collecting it from our paycheclks then if we are not going to get it. I would love to opt out
of the Social Security and save the money myself
Where does your money go when you die at 60 and the government hopes you do pass away?THEY KEEP IT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.